Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I think the video is a little misleading by using the word "observe." It's true that's what is happening, but what specifically is it about the observation? Might it have something to do with the specific apparatus used, for instance?
I'm definitely no physicist, but it seems that matter and energy are intertwined on that level, and the wave interference pattern might be from gravity-type waves. Maybe the observation interfered by being near the path, pulling it off balance or something.
Changing the observation method if possible might be a good thing to experiment with. This is only my layman's speculation, of course..
I know nothing much about quantum physics, so I really have no opinion, but thought the demonstration was interesting in that the results changed when the experiment was observed. I have seen this experiment before by the way, but thought this simple format was easier to understand....Well for me at least.
I know nothing much about quantum physics, so I really have no opinion, but thought the demonstration was interesting in that the results changed when the experiment was observed. I have seen this experiment before by the way, but thought this simple format was easier to understand....Well for me at least.
Same here basically, I'm probably completely off.
And ya, the simple format is probably how I understood it..
A student once remarked that we should do a "better" experiment. The Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle says that such a better experiment does not exist. Einstein in particular devoted a lot of time trying to devise such a better measurement; all his attempts failed.
The conclusion of all this is that there is no experiment that can tell us what the electrons are doing at the slits that does not also destroy the interference pattern. This seems to imply that there is no answer to the question of what is going on at the slits when we see the interference pattern. The path of the electron from the electron gun to the screen is not knowable when we see the interference pattern. As Heisenberg said, "The path [of the electron] comes into existence only when we observe it."
I'm going to have some fun with this, one premise at a time...
Quote:
Originally Posted by kdbrich
Logical absolutes exist. Logical absolutes are conceptual by nature, are not dependent on the space, time, physical properties, or human nature.
This is a false premise. Logical 'absolutes' don't exist in any meaninful sense of the word. Logic, rather, is the way in which the mind understands relationships between objects. As I think another poster stated, they are akin to Platonic forms. A so-called logical absolute doesn't exist in the same way that, say, a chair does. They are merely the way in which our brains perceive the reality around us. They exist as an idea, nothing more.
Quote:
Originally Posted by kdbrich
They are not the product of the physical universe (space, time, matter)because if the physical universe were to disappear, logical absolutes would still be true.
See above! They certainly are a product of the physical universe, a product of our minds more precisely. They don't exist independently of our thought and perception. There aren't these mystical logical absolutes floating around out there somewhere.
Quote:
Originally Posted by kdbrich
Logical Absolutes are not the product of human minds because human minds are different, not absolute.
Nope, they are a product of the human mind, a function of thought. This notion that 'human minds are different, not absolute' is a rhetorically meaningless flourish. Logical absolutes are simply ideas that our brains use as a means of organizing and interpreting information.
Quote:
Originally Posted by kdbrich
But, since logical absolutes are always true everywhere and not dependent upon human minds, it must be an absolute transcendent mind is authoring them. This mind is called God.
Even if the other premises of this argument were true, which they aren't, this would be a non sequitur. The conclusion that "it must be an absolute transcendent mind is authoring them" doesn't logically follow from the premise that 'since logical absolutes are always true everywhere and not dependent upon human minds.' This is so because even if the premise were true, which again it is not, there is nothing in the premise that entails that logical absolutes must be 'authored' nor does it entail that they must be the product of some conscious entity. Indeed, the argument doesn't have any idea what a logical absolute even is; the notion of a logical absolute inherent in the argument suggests that logical absolutes are some sort of entity separate from time and space (and therefore from reality). Since we are incapable of understanding things outside of reality we can't deduce anything from the idea of logical absolutes.
I'm going to have some fun with this, one premise at a time...
This is a false premise. Logical 'absolutes' don't exist in any meaninful sense of the word. Logic, rather, is the way in which the mind understands relationships between objects. As I think another poster stated, they are akin to Platonic forms. A so-called logical absolute doesn't exist in the same way that, say, a chair does. They are merely the way in which our brains perceive the reality around us. They exist as an idea, nothing more.
Logical is conceptual in nature, and simple absolutes such as the Law of Identity does not change based on time, or location. If all the people in the world disappeared, it would not change the fact that something is what it is, and isn't what it isn't.
Quote:
See above! They certainly are a product of the physical universe, a product of our minds more precisely. They don't exist independently of our thought and perception. There aren't these mystical logical absolutes floating around out there somewhere.
Who is responsible for them? If you cease to exist, they will still be there. It's not dependent on human minds--there is something larger at work.
Quote:
Nope, they are a product of the human mind, a function of thought. This notion that 'human minds are different, not absolute' is a rhetorically meaningless flourish. Logical absolutes are simply ideas that our brains use as a means of organizing and interpreting information.
Nope. Doesn't work. Something is what it is, and this planet existed before mankind.
Quote:
Even if the other premises of this argument were true, which they aren't, this would be a non sequitur. The conclusion that "it must be an absolute transcendent mind is authoring them" doesn't logically follow from the premise that 'since logical absolutes are always true everywhere and not dependent upon human minds.'
If logical absolutes are conceptual in nature--and we didn't "author" them...then who did?
Quote:
This is so because even if the premise were true, which again it is not, there is nothing in the premise that entails that logical absolutes must be 'authored' nor does it entail that they must be the product of some conscious entity. Indeed, the argument doesn't have any idea what a logical absolute even is; the notion of a logical absolute inherent in the argument suggests that logical absolutes are some sort of entity separate from time and space (and therefore from reality). Since we are incapable of understanding things outside of reality we can't deduce anything from the idea of logical absolutes.
[/quote]
You're kind of straying away from the subject here. Now...can you explain the existence of logical absolutes or not? You try to make the weak argument that they don't...then you try to make the weak argument that if they do, they are conceptual in nature...but don't need a mind to "author" them.
You're not really being consistent here.
If you don't want to believe in God...fine. Your choice. I believe that atheism is not necessarily a lack of belief, but is rather a belief against. It's irrational, and unproven. But go ahead and believe your fairy tale if it helps you sleep.
Not true. The law of identity existed long before you, or me. It is true whether my neuron firings decide it's true or not.
Your argument is flawed for two reasons that I can see:
"They are not the product of the physical universe (space, time, matter)because if the physical universe were to disappear, logical absolutes would still be true."
This premise is unproven. How do you know the laws of nature are not contingent upon being in this physical universe?
"But, since logical absolutes are always true everywhere and not dependent upon human minds, it must be an absolute transcendent mind is authoring them. This mind is called God."
As Ever Adrift said, this is a non sequitur. There is no reason "logical absolutes" have to be "authored" at all. Stop asking "who caused it?" and instead ask a question that doesn't have an unproven assumption buried in it: "What caused it?"
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
